/sci/ - Science & Math

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai-DXFXZr8s

>>10240216
that's one of the most retarded videos out there
not because of the statements he makes, they are reasonable for someone who doesn't understand evolution, but the sheer arrogance and ignorance

>>10240216
>math fags try to explain anything outside their depth
Wow how autistic can you get?

>>10240230
>sheer arrogance and ignorance
Not an argument.

>>10240234
>autistic
Not an argument.

>>10240254
>muh numbers
He doesn't even understand how evolution works and yet he can say that related traits are multiplicative in regards to number of changes.

Also changing your eye doesn't need changing your brain you can wear glasses that flip your vision and adjust in a week.

>>10240234
Times have changed. From what I've seen, I doubt many mathematicians still deny evolution.

There are plenty of people who understand evolution and deny it. Why else do you think discussions of racial differences in intelligence and behavior are verboten?

>>10240254
He suggests that a large number of parameter changes should mean a large number of species. This is not the case, since the group continues to breed with itself. Once a trait solves a constraint, that trait will spread throughout the population, so the number of related traits is, as >>10240260 puts it, not multiplicative in regards to the number of changes. He also seems to suggest that there is no environmental pressure that would cause a land mammal to become a sea mammal. Changes like this can happen gradually. It's not hard to imagine a land mammal population migrating to the coast, learning how to swim, and gradually increasing the portion of life it spends in the sea. Environmental pressure could come from many places, such as competition with other species on land, an increase in predation on land, or the appearance of a new food supply in the ocean.

>>10240254
i wasn't making an argument, are you that socially inept to assume that?

I'm not going to explain evolution to you, it takes an immense amount of knowledge in genetics, biochemistry, ecology, geology, and biology to understand it
You can keep watching retarded videos for all I care, you're being laughed at
Educate yourself please, it's fucking free

you can start here
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC102656/

>>10240214
Denying it means you don't understand it

>>10240346
>I'm not going to explain evolution to you, it takes an immense amount of knowledge in genetics, biochemistry, ecology, geology, and biology to understand it
Nah, any not-deluded-by-religion twelve year old can grasp the basics

>>10240407
>any not-deluded-by-religion twelve year old can grasp the basics
Explain >>10240216 then, he clearly doesn't understand evolution.

>>10240320
>It's not hard to imagine a land mammal population migrating to the coast, learning how to swim, and gradually increasing the portion of life it spends in the sea.
What, like Australians, you mean?

Seriously though, I have no problem with evolution as such simply because of the overwhelming genetic evidence showing relationships between species. What I do have a problem with is the way that the Darwinian theory of evolution has become in effect a religion that seeks to persecute heretics who disbelieve.

>>10240816
In what way are people who don't believe in evolution persecuted? They're not locked up, denied any rights, etc.

>>10240816
Yeah, they're almost as bad as globecucks, lol.

>>10240216
>people who lived 70 years ago doubted one model of a theory which has now been expanded
>guys this disproves evolution!

Evolution doesn't even explain how life originated, so whatever Darwin said about the origin of life, no evolutionary biologist would give a shit.

That guy in the vid doesn't even know what he's talking about. von Neumann literally said the evidence for evolution is strong. This nutjob couldn't be further from the truth--he might as well be a young earth creationist.

>>10240934
It's because science classrooms refuse to teach BOTH sides of the story. They're dominated by zealots with their religious beliefs that the Earth is round, without even considering all of the arguments for it being flat. Completely unfair.

>>10240214
I don't understand it and idc if it's correct or not.

It doesn't affect me desu.

>>10240439
He doesn't want to.

>>10241079
>They're dominated by zealots with their religious beliefs that the Earth is round
Not evolution.
Also what's the other arguement? Creationism? Most high school bio courses do start evolution with a (very brief) history of how creation ideals influenced how people thought about diversity, and go on to explain how that approach 1) isn't scientific and 2) does not have nearly the evidence non-creation has. No one talks about Lamark or Linneaus without talking about how they thought they were describing a creationist paradigm.

>>10241079
>teach BOTH sides of the story
Science isn't a debate about opinions. There is no other side. There is only;
1) A coherent and rigorous scientific theory, backed by a gigantic body of evidence from a plethora of scientific fields.
2) The opinions of people who are butt hurt because 1) contradicts their particular brand of religious delusion.

>inb4 a list of marginally relevant "smart" people who deny evolution

>>10240214
Before I was 18 I didn't know shit about evolution and only heard people saying it basically says humans were monkeys and then somehow evolved. I took it as a bad joke and didn't think about it. (I live in a muslim country)
First time I stumbled upon a video explaining it on jewtube I immediately felt like there was no way it wasn't true. So I guess anybody with the least amount of intellectual honesty who has even a very slight understating of evolution wouldn't deny it.

>>10240216
>muh fossil record
Maybe he should take a look at it before criticizing a well established scientific theory and talking down on it by calling it a hypothesis.

>>10242150
Same happened to me at 13
>raised muslim
>believed in and loved allah
>prayed every evening
>get my own pc and spend a lot of time on youtube
>discover science, atheism
>stop believing in allah

>>10240999
so far as i know Darwin never said anything about the origin of life, his book was named the origin of species.

>>10240254
>Not an argument
Not an argument.

>>10242196
Haha the same exact thing happened to me, how'd you handle it with your parents?

>>10242567
Not him, I am >>10242150 and I still haven't told my parents I'm not a muslim anymore (I'm 23 now). They are very nice people especially my father, and they don't deserve to have their hearts broken, so I'm not planning to tell them.

>>10243772
>They are very nice people
So I will lie to them for the rest of my life

>>10243875
If you see it that way...

>>10240216
If he didn't have his deluded viewpoint, he wouldn't have something to talk about. Merely an edge lord denying evolution for clout.

The rate of mutation needed to obtain humans from prokaryotes is too high when constrained by the 4.5B years since the surface of the Earth cooled off enough to stop being lava.
>The Truth About Evolution
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1602.0132

>>10240216
>Whales are the same class as cows
>Cows are pretty different from whales huh
What a fucking autist

>>10241079
Classrooms should teach both sides of the flat-globe Earth debate too!

>>10240214
I personally have a very hard time believing something as complex as the eye could be the result of a natural process, I fully accept "natural selection", species mutating and changing overtime.
But how exactly does something so enormously complex like the human eye come to be?
The individual steps there seem to be very unclear and not really beneficial on their own, how exactly does an eye develop on its own?
The basic functionality seems to be much like a camera, changing focus through a mechanical process and receiving images by means of cells which get stimulated differently by different amounts of light, but how exactly does something like that develop naturally?

>>10240214

No data on any one trait having any reproductive relevance, nor on the Teleology thereof given that the offshoot would always start at a reproductive disadvantage relative to the initial taxon, and would go extinct before merely breaking even, according to Darwinian principles. No one willing to apply their standards of speciation for the handful of taxa purported to have been observed speciating to previously established taxonomical trees. No data on predicting speciation in general, thus the theory's failure even as the mere "tool" STEMoids jerk themselves raw over. New Synthesis being an open source cesspit where everything from Theology to Numerology to Eschatology is dumped in the hopes of masking Darwin's nonsense.

>>10240214
Leftists deny evolution when applied to the human brain because it's conclusions hurt their feefees.

It depends what you mean by evolution.
If you mean the fact that organisms evolved from a simple microorganism to the complex organisms we have today, then nobody can deny this.
But if you mean the fact that it is a completely random process of random mutations, which just happen and the ones who are more fit to survival will live on, then that's absolute bullshit.
It's not random at all, but guided from the subconscious part of the brain. Nothing is random in this universe, but you need to not be a brainlet to understand this.

>>10240214
If life originated by chance, so could God.

Checkmate.

>>10248825
life: seen
god: not seen

checkmate

>>10241079
>Both
There are an infinite amount of sides and we can barely teach the right ones, why bother with the disproven ones?

>>10246246
Aight, let's begin

>Muh junk dna
Strawman complaining about the general population's understanding of genetics. Pointless and not an actual criticism of evolution

>Muh thermodynamics
First of all, abiogenesis is not the same as evolution. Second of all, this guy completely fails to identify a properly isolated system before discussing entropy. Fuck this guy.

>Muh epigenetics
Oh look he almost pointed out something relevant and interesting. Let's see if he continues and...

>Muh Darwin
Nope. Darwin is not infallible. He's interesting only from historical perspective, not in modern theory. That's why it's not called "Darwinism", but evolution.

>Muh Darwinian rates of mutation
Again, why is he still talking about Darwin's idea of evolution? This guy is literally arguing with dead people at this point.

>Muh evolution=specism
This guy has NO concrete definition of what evolution is. He just uses it as a placeholder for every concept that he misunderstands, then conflates it all together.

>There is no reason to conclude that life with fewer chromosomes can evolve into life with now chromosomes
Objectively wrong. Read about polyploidy.

This guy is a fucking jackass who has no clue what he's talking about. If he wants to argue with Darwin, he should go visit a graveyard. If he wants to argue with an actual biologist, then he needs to stop talking about Darwin's.

>>10248755
>It's not random at all, but guided from the subconscious part of the brain
You... You are aware that not every organism has a brain, right? That plants and bacteria evolve too, right?

>>10247218
>The individual steps there seem to be very unclear and not really beneficial on their own
You're going to have to go into more detail than that if you want a serious answer. There are plenty of types of eyes all across the animal kingdom with varying degrees of complexity that seem to function perfectly fine for what that organism needs.

>>10247218
https://youtu.be/YT1vXXMsYak?t=24m

>>10247218
you wanna know how creationism is bullshit?
Human eyes are so poorly designed they have a literal blind spot while fucking squids don't

>>10248744
How come you stormfags always come out of nowhere just to post your shit in an unrelated thread

>>10248883
Jesus saw God.

Check and mate

>>10251095
A forbidden one LITERAL shitposter complaining about anyone else. The irony was lost on the subhuman that posted this.

>>10251387
>...other peoples' hallucinations

>>10251400
>...other peoples' lack of faith

>>10251404
>idiot, seriously invoking Lucille

https://youtu.be/EUeQXmYVamA?t=25m50s

>>10240214
>Does anyone understand evolution and still deny it? What's your reasoning?
Given four billion years since the surface of the Earth cooled off enough to form land and seas, the rate of mutation needed to obtain human genetic code from prokaryotic bacterial genes within the geological age of the Earth is much too high. It is so high that the rate is unphysical.
>The Truth About Evolution
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1602.0132

>>10251410
>idiot, seriously invoking Lucifer

>>10251427
assuming constant mutation rates is laughably naive

>>10251432
[citation needed]

>>10251446
Deceiving mankind is all the citation you need.

>>10251456
so nothing then
kek

>>10251427
See>>10249017

>>10240216
i'm convinced that mathfags are actually just dumb autistic people

>>10249017
Im a different anon but you did not offer a single argument. You just said the guy is wrong and hes not talking about evolution (mutually exclusive concepts btw...) he could be right but not talking about your particular interpretation/definition of evolution. Again yore just saying hes not doing something, which is not an argument, its a statement. This still led you to sperg out for some reason.

>>10253163
What is "Argument from Ignorance." alex.

>>10253163
Anon, in those thirteen pages, at no point does he establish a consistent definition for what "evolution" is. Considering this is what he spends the entire time trying to argue against, this is egregious. He completely fails at argumentation. It's not just that his argument is bad; his argument never even was.

>>10253493
You seem like less of a sperg so im guessing youre not the one i responded to but youre doing the same thing. Youre just saying the author does not do something and your only evidence is a subjective opinion with a sort of "trust me" attitude. Since you personally feel he has not done that something you seemingly conclude ALL his points are wrong. This is non constructive and faulty thinking. You cant prove any connotation definition of any word is not consistent unless you find a logical contradiction because any definition can have OR operators. So point out a contradiction or you have no argument; you merely disagree on his definition of evolution

>>10253563
Maybe if you actually paid attention to >>10249017, you'd understand where the contradictions are. He spends his entire time attacking what he refers to as "Darwinian evolution", and surmises that to encompass evolutionary thinking as a whole. He makes no effort to cite any of his claims besides quoting someone who has been dead for nearly 140 years and a wiki page on statistical mechanics. His figures do little to nothing to increase or assist understanding (Figure 3 is a picture of a weinerdog literally labeled and described as "weinerdog"). His notions of the second law of thermodynamics outright bastardize the concept of isolated systems. And again, a LOT of the shit he says is patently wrong. For instance;

>but for an entire new chromosome to improve fitness by chance is something that has to
be observed to be believed.
We've outright witnessed the birth of new species via changes in chromosome count. Species which are very successful. And we regularly see BP counts increase via transposons and the like.

Now you need to stop being a little bitch for a change and bear with me. Because unlike the massive retard who somehow shat out 13 pages of utter trash, I'm limited to a character count of 1500, 1259 of which have been used up to this point, and there is a limit to the level of detail I can refute him. The only reason that you consider any of that post spergish is because
1) You're projecting.
2) You're too dumb to actually understand the context.

Eat shit.

>>10242196
religious beliefs are like mushrooms
they flourish best when kept in the dark and fed shit

Evolution by incremental steps can explain pretty much anything, but certain odds just seem absurdly low.
Could there be an external mechanism that influences the probabilities of these mutation to happen?
I don't know, like parallel universes somehow leaking the probability of best adaptations to happen in similar molecular configurations?
Can the lower-rate procreating species actually manage to keep adapting at an adequate speed?

>>10240234
Appeal to authority

evolution does not contradict creation and vice versa.

>>10254124
How does it work for Adam and Eve?

>>10254124
Depends on how you define creation. Most creation theories are philosophically essentialist, where all changes in form and function are via divine intervention. And that's pretty well opposed to evolutionary theory.

>>10254205
I would consolidate both ideas for peace sake.

>>10254216
You're going to have to explain yourself with that one. I'm starting to think you don't know what essentialism is.

>>10254230
I have no clue m8
what does it mater you could spin it in any direction. evolution itself could be divine intervention if you like it.

just like creation evolution says that we had a common ancestor and that we evolved from it

in detail there might me some misunderstandings but they are quite the same

>>10254250
>evolution itself could be divine intervention if you like it.
I think you're missing the real issue with creationism.
A lot of scientists are not outright opposed to the idea that some divine being played a role in how we got where we are. Their objections come from the fact that most people who support that notion insist it happened that particular way based on testimony rather than physical evidence. *If* god drove evolution, then the objective of an evolutionist is to understand and replicate the mechanisms by which he did it.

The reason creationists take offense to this is because many of them consider their witness testimonies to either be infallible or proof of their particular notion of god, and those testimonies and notions tend to contradict other creation stories. And I don't know how you think you're going to consolidate all of them.

>>10254294
well there are obviously different understandings of things. I think evolution in the scientific sense is more profound and more apropriate for the age we live in. these creation stories need to be analysed and understood why they were told the way the were. I am sure that this is the key on finding a common core. Our ancestors were not stupid and these stories were tailored towards the world they lived in. I think we still live in that world to some extend so a better understanding of these creation stories might help. Words dont mean the same as they did in the past. well i am derailing on the topic a bit so i will leave it as it is

>>10254194
I don't consider the stories in the quran as literal, they are meant to teach moral lessons.

>>10254455
But Adam is a prophet in Islam

>>10254474
Yes, the first one in fact. For humans at least.

>>10254475
So you believe he had parents?
What do other muslim think about your position?

>>10254480
No he didn't have parents, he exists in abstraction. Not necessarily in reality. He and eve serve a purpose in telling the story of creation. Other muslims probably would kill me for my beliefs.

>>10254323
>Our ancestors were not stupid
That's where you're wrong.

>>10253916
Now heres the sperglord I responded to earlier

>Maybe if you actually paid attention to.. youd understand where the contradictions are
Definitely not an argument just your screeching subjective opinion
>He spends his entire time attacking what he refers to as "Darwinian evolution" and surmises that to encompass evolutionary thinking as a whole
same
>He makes no effort to cite any of his claims besides quoting someone ...
same, ill refer back to this in a second
>His figures do little to nothing to increase or assist understanding
same
>His notions of the second law of thermodynamics outright bastardize the concept of isolated systems
Same
>and again a LOT of the shit he says is patently wrong
Lol "again"... but hold on.
>Weve outright witnessed the birth of new species via changes in chromosome count. Species which are very successful
FINALLY a statement capable of being objectively disproven;an argument. You failed to CITE your evidence though like you accused the author above. I cant counter argue against evidence which exists but youve not shared. Its likely taxonomical semantics or fossil record assumptions of chromosomal changes, nothing weve actually witnesses but you rather assume happened. Or in the rare case chromosomal deletions which make a "new" species vastly less fit.
>And we regularly see BP counts increase via transposons and the like.
the author didnt disagree with this

>Now you need to stop being a little bitch
>[spergmode x10000]
>Eat shit
Protip you wont run out of character space if you stop filling your replies with 90% non argument subjective personal opinions

>>10242150
>First time I stumbled upon a video explaining it on jewtube I immediately felt like there was no way it wasn't true. So I guess anybody with the least amount of intellectual honesty who has even a very slight understating of evolution wouldn't deny it.
I felt the same way, once it was explained to me that we share 98+% of or genetics with chimps and that we share decreasing amount of DNA with every other living thing on earth I was pretty convinced

also the guys explaining evolution to me didn't seem to care if i believed it or not, they were just trying to explain it to me the way you would tell someone what a square or triangle was. All the antievolutonary people seemed to be frothing at the mouth and to have no explanation for fossils or DNA thats seemed plausible

also fossils

>>10247218
>I personally have a very hard time believing something as complex as the eye could be the result of a natural process,
that's called the "argument from incredulity" in formal logic and it is a fallacy

It's like saying "I don't understand how a nuclear power plant works, therefore it does not or therefore it's magic"

>>10254968
>Definitely not an argument just your screeching subjective opinion
His inability to differentiate between our current understanding of evolution and Darwin's initial theory is not "a subjective opinion".

>Same
Same.
>Same
Same.
>Same
Same.

Learn what a subjective opinion is. Your cute "sames" mean nothing because you failed to actually address his misunderstanding.
Furthermore, if you want citations? Fucking ask. I'm not the asshole pretending to write a scientific paper. This is a completely different medium, and designed to be interactive. You have the privilege of asking me in real time for clarification on any claims I've made. As a consequence though, I have a limited character count, and that's something you need to cope with.

>Its likely taxonomical semantics or fossil record assumptions of chromosomal changes,
Google Erythranthe peregrina so that I can drink your tears.

>>10255056
>His inability to differentiate between our current understanding of evolution and Darwins initial theory is not "a subjective opinion"
Again you just state im wrong wrong instead of making an actual argument. No it really is your subjective personal opinion evidenced by the fact that one cannot define the connotation of a word by merely observing how another uses it. You personally feel hes not differentiating between his definition and whatever flavor du jour evolutionary definition you have/like, nothing more.

Moreover, in the very first sentence u likely didnt read he states the paper applies to any variant theory of evolution which relies on mutation rates happening at adequate rates to create extant life in the time frame given, which is all of them. So even your subjective opinion is wrong as whatever "current understanding of evolution" you have sorta kinda depends on mutations, unless you think "dirt" from "4 billion" YO turned into all extant life without needing mutations ROFL

>Learn what a subjective opinion is. Your cute "sames" mean nothing because you failed to actually address his misunderstanding.
NAA

>Google Erythranthe peregrina so that I can drink your tears
Yep my very 1st guess was correct: taxonomical semantics.

>For speciation to occur, two new populations must be formed from one original population and they must evolve in such a way that it becomes impossible for individuals from the two new populations to interbreed
No chance in hell that plant cant cross polinate with its "proginitor species" hence no tears for u. Why do evolutionary toxonomists contradict themselves so much

I know youll come up with a "gotcha!" from my link & ill deal with it later. Remember the topic was "observing" a "new" species.


https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-biology1/chapter/formation-of-new-species/

>>10255025
>I felt the same way, once it was explained to me that we share 98+% of or genetics with chimps and that we share decreasing amount of DNA with every other living thing on earth I was pretty convinced
Its "96%." Evolutionists have a tendency to not know/understand/care about any of the info they repeat/ feed you so you should get in the habit of questioning them.

t.notfrothingatmouthcreationist

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/chimps-humans-96-percent-the-same-gene-study-finds/

>>10255335
What do you believe?

>>10255343
I think an single planet sized collective emergent complexity organism made from simple replicators (which possibly came about via an evolution like process) developed sentience, superintelligence, and technology slowly over eons and has been conducting a panspermia experiment since the "cambrian explosion" when complex organisms suddenly showed up inexplicably and the experiment has been happening via dropping shipments of slightly genetically modified animals every few million years............is a better explanation than any evolution definition being the reason were here. So you can imagine how low of an opinion I have of evolution.

But what I believe is literal interpretation biblical creationism, which i can also admit doesnt look too good on paper. Its really faith based pick your poison with any explanation, seems like nobody else, ever, admits this.

>>10255293
>Yep my very 1st guess was correct: taxonomical semantics.
There's nothing semantic about it. It's prezygotic isolation due to different chromosome counts. Please explain to me how that is semantic.

>No chance in hell that plant cant cross pollinate with its "proginitor species" hence no tears for u
It literally has double the chromosome count of the parent species. If you knew a single thing about genetics, you'd immediately realize why this is an issue. You'd also realize that this is concise proof that the author's insistence that aneuploidy can't be beneficial is objectively wrong.

Why are you so fucking retarded?

>Again you just state im wrong wrong instead of making an actual argument.
"Darwin's concept of evolution is different than modern evolutionary theory. This paper's continual focus on Darwin does not invalidate or address modern evolutionary theory."

This is a very clear and concise statement. Feel free to tell me how I can improve it to suit your needs. Meanwhile, I'm completely baffled why you are so desperate to defend a paper that reads like it was written by a high schooler making his first attempt at a scientific review.

>>10255335
>Its "96%."
Is that a statistically significant difference?

>>10255431
>There's nothing semantic about it. It's prezygotic isolation due to different chromosome counts. Please explain to me how that is semantic.
Well for starters different chromosome counts dont default to prezygotic isolation and we know this via direct observation. Horses and donkeys can make fertile female hybrids which can still mate with the parent species. So yeah picking and choosing what words to use due to reasons you just made up on the spot is a pretty solid example of arguing semantics.
>It literally has double the chromosome count of the parent species
Please give me the integer u made up on the spot which constitutes the max # difference in chromosomes betweetwo species who CAN make fertile offspring that CANT reproduce back with either parent species. Ill go grab a bingo card.
>If you knew a single thing about genetics, you'd immediately realize why this is an issue
NAA
>authors insistence that aneuploidy cant be beneficial is objectively wrong
Now this will be semantics i admit but the new "species" would not have aneuploidy. It would have its own correct # of a different # of chromosomes.

It doesnt matter anyway bc the author seemingly was talking about a brand new never before seen chromosome popping into a species lineage like through genetic drift or a shitton of point mutations, not hybridization.

Also inabability of a new sexually reproducing species to reproduce with its proginitor species due to the same alleged mechanism in your plant example, ie allopolyploidy, would have devastating fitness consequences... theres nothing to mate with. U cant say the author is objectively wrong with problems like that.

>>10255431
Sry I hate doubleposting but i wont make any arguments here
>"Darwin's concept of evolution is different than modern evolutionary theory. This paper's continual focus on Darwin does not invalidate or address modern evolutionary theory."
I already adressed this in that all modern theories still rely on mutation rates.

>This is a very clear and concise statement. Feel free to tell me how I can improve it to suit your needs. Meanwhile, I'm completely baffled why you are so desperate to defend a paper that reads like it was written by a high schooler making his first attempt at a scientific review.
I didnt even read it. Maybe one paragraph. It could be riddled with errors. This whole time ive just been pointing out that 90 percent of your criticisms were just non argument opinions you sperged out becausevyou dont like a paper written by a creationist. The other 10% consisting of actual arguments did not require reading the paper to invalidate.

Ill read it eventually.

>>10255663
>Well for starters different chromosome counts dont default to prezygotic isolation and we know this via direct observation. Horses and donkeys can make fertile female hybrids which can still mate with the parent species. So yeah picking and choosing what words to use due to reasons you just made up on the spot is a pretty solid example of arguing semantics.
Anon, we're not talking about a difference in chromosome size of 64 to 62. You're talking about recombining two genomes where one is double the size of the other one.

>So yeah picking and choosing what words to use due to reasons you just made up on the spot is a pretty solid example of arguing semantics.
This is common knowledge. Did you even read your own link? It outright sites polyploidy as a means of sympatric speciation and a prezygotic isolator. Why would you post something you haven't even read or understood?

>Please give me the integer u made up on the spot which constitutes the max # difference in chromosomes betweetwo species who CAN make fertile offspring that CANT reproduce back with either parent species
It's all probabilistic, like everything with genetics. And the larger issue isn't that the two species that made E. peregina are different chromosome count; They're actually very similar, at least enough to generate sterile offspring. The issue is that the mutation that occurred in the hybrid itself resulted in a duplicate genome, which radically reduces the probability of crossing further.

>i admit but the new "species" would not have aneuploidy. It would have its own correct # of a different # of chromosomes.
You're so close, so very close to realizing the reality of biology and genetics; that the concept of species is bullshit.

>>10255663
>Also inabability of a new sexually reproducing species to reproduce with its proginitor species due to the same alleged mechanism in your plant example, ie allopolyploidy, would have devastating fitness consequences... theres nothing to mate with.
2 things:
1) It's called selfing. It's how this species did it.
2) If a species has a propensity to repeat the same replication error, the likelihood that a possible mate will arise via the same mechanism.

Neither of these are impossible, but both are uncommon. And more importantly, both allow massive growth in genomes. The point is, if you crossbred enough people with down syndrome, it's not impossible that you'd get something akin to a new species.

>It doesnt matter anyway bc the author seemingly was talking about a brand new never before seen chromosome popping into a species lineage like through genetic drift or a shitton of point mutations, not hybridization.
Speciation of E. peregina arose predominately from polyploidy, not hybridization though hybridization played a role. The author very explicitly dismisses aneuploidy saying that downsyndrom doesn't count.

>I already adressed this in that all modern theories still rely on mutation rates.
Yeah, mutation rates that radically vary between species, type of genetic error, and population count. And the impact of those different mutations are also radically different, i.e. single point mutations vs. polyploidy.

>I didnt even read it.
Then fuck off.

>you dont like a paper written by a creationist
I don't like anyone that misapplies the laws of thermodynamics or intentionally references outdated theories to bolster their own premise. But I guess you consider that yet another "non-argument".

>>10249213
Yeah ok maybe it's random at that level.
But once you get at more complex organisms like humans, I seriously doubt it's completely random.

>>10255904
You could be possibly right. I think it's fair to look deeper into how things like the immune system could be communicating with the brain to guide evolution. But you're still an ass for trying to write out randomness entirely and not providing a suitable mechanism.

>>10255924
It's just I don't believe in randomness at all.
We just think stuff is random, because we don't have enough information and are not smart enough to understand it.
Of course I can't prove it. It's just my belief from observing the world, during my lifetime.

>>10255940
Don't parade your beliefs as facts, Anon.

>>10255982
Stop being random, randomfag.

>>10245897
>>10243875
>>10243772
>>10242567
>>10242196
>>10242150

Anons religion isn't realistic, why not both? Just have some doublethink dude

>>10255940
consider the proven inexistence of hidden variables in QM.

>>10255835
>You're talking about recombining two genomes where one is double the size of the other one.
>It's all probabilistic, like everything with genetics. . . . duplicate genome, which radically reduces the probability of crossing further
Saying statistically it shouldnt reproduce is not the same as knowing it cant reproduce. The two combined chromosome sets are extremely similar like u said hence an analogue could be tetraploidy in humans and its not insane to think they could be fertile with normal humans if they didnt die immediately from phenotyic abnormalities. And as an aside theres no way in hell people with tetraploidy would be labelled a new species if they did live long enough and were only able to reproduce with others with the same abnormality.

>It outright sites polyploidy as a means of sympatric speciation and a prezygotic isolator
Im maintaining speciation has not occured thus its playing semantics. Of course by observing species today taxonomists assume ur greentext happeneded. This is the gotcha!i predicted from u. Our discussion is observing a new species, ie never before existing on earth, not assuming a mechanism is responsible for a distinct species currently in existence.

>You're so close, so very close to realizing the reality of biology and genetics; that the concept of species is bullshit.
So a concept [speciation] invented by evolutionists that is regularly peddled by evolutionists as proof of evolution is based on a concept that is bullshit... sounds perfectly correct to me.

>2 things:
>Neither of these are impossible, but both are uncommon.
I said sexually reproducing, thus selfing does not apply and i wasnt talking about the plant. Youre talking about 1 in a million coincidences compounding on top of each other and then happening again in a mate and they happen to find each other. Not going to entertain that fiction.

>>10255855
>Speciation of E. peregina arose predominately from polyploidy, not hybridization though hybridization played a role. The author very explicitly dismisses aneuploidy saying that downsyndrom doesn't count.
Its literally a "new species" from combining the diploid genomes of E. guttata and E. lutea. That is 100% hypbridization. The mechanism of course is polyploidization which resulted in a tetraploid hybrid. Again this "speciation" is all just taxonomic semantics like i said which evolutionists twist to claim to school children that new speciesare popping up right before our eyes all thanks to evolution.... which is all based on bullshit like you said

He would dismiss a type of aeuploidy, not every instance/the entire concept. This is in line with what i said as DS is a copy of one specific chromosome not a completely new never before seen chromosome

>>10256013
It's not why I stopped believing in Islam anon. I stopped believing because Islamic texts are against reason and morals. And you can't really say that I believed in the first place, it was more like I was raised that way and it was part of who I was; if you dared to insult one of islam's symbols (allah, prophet mohamed, his companions, ...) it'd be as if you insulted me.
Also I wanna let you know that even though islamic texts and sharia are barbarian and encourage hatred against non muslims, most muslims don't want to kill or hurt you. They're just muslims by tradition and aren't really aware of those texts / ignore them.

>>10257500
>Saying statistically it shouldnt reproduce is not the same as knowing it cant reproduce.
Scientifically speaking, it's essentially the same thing. This is why we calculate significant figures and standard deviation, because nearly every conclusion in science is derived from what is statistically significant. Sounds like your gripe is with science as a whole, not just evolution. You're welcome to drag the argument out that far if you want, but I have zero interest in discussing epistemology with you.

>And as an aside theres no way in hell people with tetraploidy would be labelled a new species if they did live long enough and were only able to reproduce with others with the same abnormality.
Except they would. Immediately. That's the thing about prezygotic and postzygotic barriers is that if you try this, that, and the third, you can feasibly overcome any barrier to hybridize any species. But that wouldn't be enough to prevent the respective populations from genetic drift. And this is what I'm alluding to when I say that "Species is a bullshit concept." I'll go into this a bit more in the next post.

> Of course by observing species today taxonomists assume ur greentext happened
They're not "assuming' anything. Assumptions are baseless. They lack evidence. The conclusions for E. peregrina being a new species are both deduced and inferred. The species it evolved from didn't exist in england until 200 years ago. It has also not been observed anywhere else, and genetic analysis confirms its genetic relation to its respective parents. Mechanisms for how aneuploidy happens have also been observed, meaning that means for this to occur is also justified.

By the way, here's what an ACTUAL scientific paper looks like.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/evo.12678
You're welcome to read and critique it instead of getting a secondhand account from me. Feel free to tell me what missteps they made in their experiment.

>>10257500
>So a concept [speciation] invented by evolutionists that is regularly peddled by evolutionists as proof of evolution is based on a concept that is bullshit... sounds perfectly correct to me.
And that's the thing. You *almost* understand why "species" is bullshit. But you're failing to grasp the overall picture. Evolutionists love the concept of speciation. Populations gradually changing over time, it's what they've claimed all along. But what they hate is the concept of species. And that's because it has its origins as essentialist concept that radically oversimplifies phylogenetics, and that's why there's no concrete definition of what a "species" is. But "species' as a concept is not necessary to say that populations of organisms undergo radical genetic and morphological changes. Plus, total genetic isolation is absurd, considering that genes often get exchanged across radically different species across different kingdoms anyway.

>I said sexually reproducing, thus selfing does not apply and i wasnt talking about the plant.
Selfing IS a form of sexual reproduction. It still undergoes meiotic haploid/diploid cycles. And the plant doesn't just reproduce with itself. It reproduces with other members of its species as well.

>Youre talking about 1 in a million coincidences compounding on top of each other and then happening again in a mate and they happen to find each other.
It's not that much different than certain human family lineages having higher predisposition for specific types of cancer. If anything, there's a lot of evidence that plants having a predisposition for polyploidy is an adaptive trait, which is why we see evidence of it across a wide array of species. You might as well entertain that "fiction". Because there are at least 3 other species that we have witnessed it in.

>>10257500
>Again this "speciation" is all just taxonomic semantics like i said which evolutionists twist to claim to school children that new speciesare popping up right before our eyes all thanks to evolution.... which is all based on bullshit like you said
To reiterate; Species is bullshit concept because essentiallism is bullshit, not because evolution is bullshit. It's no different than teaching kids about molecules as though they were balls and sticks as opposed to fields. It's useful for introducing or communicating the concept, but it is does not represent the reality.

>This is in line with what i said as DS is a copy of one specific chromosome not a completely new never before seen chromosome
This part I don't understand. What does "completely new never before seen" chromosome mean? If a chromosome duplicates itself, both daughters are going to experience sepearate mutations.during each replication. Each chromosome is a new chromosome separate and distinct from the original. Chromosomes don't come from the ground up, they come from other chromosomes.

>Its literally a "new species" from combining the diploid genomes of E. guttata and E. lutea. That is 100% hypbridization. The mechanism of course is polyploidization which resulted in a tetraploid hybrid.
Keyword was "predominant", friend. The hybridization is not the factor that limits cross-fertilization between the parent and child species. The polyploidization is the inhibiting factor.

>>10254323
> these creation stories need to be analysed and understood why they were told the way the were.
As long as you don't mistake that for validity, I'm willing to entertain it. But I'm not all that eager to take literal descriptions from people that believed in stuff like chimeras, manticores, sphinxes, and the like.

>>10254543
Some ancient populations probably had higher IQs than today's people. Ancient Greeks for instance. They only had a smaller knowledge base.

>>10257757
Wow i thought ur "then fuck off" comment meant u were done replying. Im not making 3 responses so im going to curate what i think is more important even though i disagree with much more. U might as well do the same
>because nearly every conclusion in science is derived from what is statistically significant
Diploid-polyploid complex. Its not "statistically as x # of chromosomes goes up the chance of a hybrid goes down by y" its a different mechanism entirely and youre doing the exact same thing u accuse the author of doing: mathematically extrapolating accross different mechanisms. Also the paper link u copied from wiki says species within the genus with half as many chromosomes as another can still make hybrids. The paper is also out of date as it labels ur plant Mimulus peregrinus

>The conclusions for E. peregrina being a new species are both deduced and inferred.
>["species"] has its origins as essentialist concept that radically oversimplifies phylogenetics, and that's why there's no concrete definition of what a "species" is.
A contradiction which can only be escaped from via.... taxonomic semantics. People desperately want to say a new species popped into existence so theyll twist a "non concrete" definition until it fits what they want

>total genetic isolation is absurd, considering that genes often get exchanged across radically different species across different kingdoms
U must be talking about the evolution theory death knell known as horizontal gene "transfer".. just because you refuse to acknowledge common design in dna accross kingdoms doesnt mean i must accept ur fanciful comic book tier theories that i might get spider dna mixed with mine if a spider bites me. Thus ill maintain kingdoms are genetically isolated
Welp running out of room so
-FFS i meant sexual reproduction as in exclusive reproduction via allogamy
-a never before seen chromosome would be akin to the alleged "fused" chromosome we have which gives us one less than chimps.